Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Reynard]

Maybe, I don't know why it would be any more chaotic than the current system. This is not my ideal, but lets just say we keep the 3-action system and we only change reactions. So now, a reaction cost 1 action. If you use all 3 actions on your turn, you can use a reaction to make the OA or cast counterspell (I assume it is a reaction in PF2e). Now there is a solid reason to hold onto an action.

Is that a desirable outcome? The point of the 3 action economy is to provide options and encourage movement and other non-attack actions (hence the -10 penalty for that 3rd attack). By forcing people to hold on to an action for that reaction, you slow down combat and make it less dynamic and interesting. or, at least, that seems like it would be the outcome. I have not played PF2E yet, but the one things that gets almost universal praise is the 3 action economy and so I am inclined to think messing with it can't be better than they way it is.

 

[JFranklin3000]

Really it is a 3 action and 1 reaction system. Everyone gets a reaction every turn, but since the triggers are specific you may not have it go off. It can also be very interesting, because you only have one reaction per turn. Do I make the attack of Opportunity or do I save it for the Shield Block. It also seems to have the added benefit of keeping the players extra interested when it is not their turn. In case they have a chance to use a reaction.

 

[dave2008]

Is that a desirable outcome? The point of the 3 action economy is to provide options and encourage movement and other non-attack actions (hence the -10 penalty for that 3rd attack). By forcing people to hold on to an action for that reaction, you slow down combat and make it less dynamic and interesting. or, at least, that seems like it would be the outcome. I have not played PF2E yet, but the one things that gets almost universal praise is the 3 action economy and so I am inclined to think messing with it can't be better than they way it is.

Well as I noted earlier in the thread I wouldn't modify the 3-action system like that, I would use a 6 action system. See my post #531 if reactions are included, but a different value you could include them in the system adding some interesting things without costing you interesting things. I least that is what I think.

 

[dave2008]

Really it is a 3 action and 1 reaction system. Everyone gets a reaction every turn, but since the triggers are specific you may not have it go off. It can also be very interesting, because you only have one reaction per turn. Do I make the attack of Opportunity or do I save it for the Shield Block. It also seems to have the added benefit of keeping the players extra interested when it is not their turn. In case they have a chance to use a reaction.

That doesn't change in my proposed 6 action system , it just gets better, IMO.

 

[JFranklin3000]

That doesn't change in my proposed 6 action system , it just gets better, IMO.

That sounds really complicated, but hey man you do you!

 

[dave2008]

That sounds really complicated, but hey man you do you!

My idea is a little different, bit it could be almost exactly like the 3 action system (1 action in the 3 action system cost 2 actions in a 6 action system), but with some extra granularity to include some extra options. PF2e is a complex game, this changes so little I don't think it really adds to the overall complexity.

But I wouldn't change anything my self. I am confident the 3 action + reaction system plays just fine, I just like the design of the all encompassing action system better.

 

[CapnZapp]

Basically yes. What I envision is a pool of actions you have for a round. You can use them on your turn or not. But once they are gone, those are all the action you can do that round.

Not sure conceptual elegance is worth it in this case.

I suspect it would nearly always be better to spend your sixth action on your own turn than save it for reactions that might never trigger. (Obviously not in the specific case of waiting out an enemy, but in general) Even if MAP means attacking is out of the question, why not spend it on a move or on whatever supporting actions the system allows (PF2 examples: demoralize, shield block etc).

If reactions were instead actions borrowed from next turn it would make more sense. Of course, there are good reasons why a designer wouldn't go there: not only would you need to remember if you borrowed actions from last turn, but I suspect players would not enjoy having "empty" turns where most of their actions are already used up.

I have my own hang-ups for sure but reactions not being interchangable with other actions is not one of them.

Anyway, there's soon enough material on your design ideas to support a thread of its own, Dave! Cheers

 

[dave2008]

Not sure conceptual elegance is worth it in this case.

I'm sure it is not, but I can't help myself! I'll will drop it, I've written to much about it now on this thread.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The summoned creature does what you tell it to do as far as I know. I can't imagine a DM would not let you to do this.

The spell literally says "you summon a creature to fight for you" (as do all of the other summoning spells).

If you are saying that it seems like an arbitrary restriction that the creature you summon will fight for you but that you cannot summon a creature because it has better senses, you want it to scout for you, trigger a trap, or any other reason, then we are in agreement.

However, from your comment, it seems that you are saying that because "you summon a creature to fight" seems like an arbitrary restriction, we should consider that it wasn't the developers' intention to impose that restriction.

I am skeptical about this second point, because the PF2 is littered with examples of arbitrary restrictions (for niche protection or other reasons):

• like Making an Impression on more than one person without the Group Impression feat;
• like the fact that a Heal spell does not remove the Wounded Condition but Treat Wounds does;
• like the fact that you need a level 6 fighter feat to leave a dagger in an invisible opponent so others can target it;
• like the fact that you need a level 2 wizard feat to make a Sleight of Hand and Deception check to obscure your spellcasting;
• like the fact that to block with a Shield you need to spend an action to raise it;
• like the fact that you can't use Performance to Create a Distraction.

And you seem to forget that you can summon creatures for longer durations and to do more things with rituals.

No, I'm not forgetting anything. We are playing Fall of Plaguestone only, so no, there aren't higher level spells or rituals available.

 

[billd91]

The spell literally says "you summon a creature to fight for you" (as do all of the other summoning spells).

If you are saying that it seems like an arbitrary restriction that the creature you summon will fight for you but that you cannot summon a creature because it has better senses, you want it to scout for you, trigger a trap, or any other reason, then we are in agreement.

However, from your comment, it seems that you are saying that because "you summon a creature to fight" seems like an arbitrary restriction, we should consider that it wasn't the developers' intention to impose that restriction.

This question is ultimately answered on page 301 of the PF2 Core Rulebook in the section about the Summoned spell trait. In a nutshell, yes, you can tell summoned creature to do things for you that aren't just fighting.